Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues the wonderful news that the University of Mississippi Concert Singers won top honors last week at the World Choral Competition in Rome, Italy. The group from Ole Miss, led by Dr. Jerry Jordan, is the first American choir ever to have qualified for this exclusive international competition and, of course, the first to win the top prize. Today, they are considered the best amateur choir on the face of the Earth. To reach the Super Bowl of choral competitions in Italy, groups from around the world first had to qualify for and then win 1 of 6 international events. On their way to the finals, the Ole Miss singers won the grand prize in May of 1997 in a competition in Bulgaria. Then last week, the group outperformed choirs from Sweden, Hungary, Estonia and Taiwan, all of which had won international choral events in past years. The Ole Miss concert singers are no strangers to performing on the international stage. During Dr. Jordan's 18 years at Ole Miss, his choral groups have toured on nine occasions; they have participated in international competition three times; and, in 1994, earned their only other trip to the grand event. The Collegiate Choir Program at the University of Mississippi is recognized among the best in the Nation. Dr. Jerry Jordan is one of the country's most accomplished directors. He has conducted the American Symphony Orchestra at Lincoln Center in New York and is a regular conductor at Carnegie Hall. Dr. Jordan's leadership and the exceptional talents of these students produced an unprecedented result in Rome. The judges said the group performed an extremely difficult and diverse program and did so flawlessly. The 50-member group sang seven songs in five different languages over the span of its allotted 30-minute program. Mr. Speaker, there are at least five alumni from the University of Mississippi in the House of Representatives. And at this point, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi my colleague (Mr. Pickering).

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, there is work to be done tonight and we will get to it, but I think it is important that we take the time tonight to honor Lou Stokes. I speak as a junior member of the Committee on Appropriations, and I speak tonight symbolically from the other side of the aisle to pay tribute to Lou Stokes and the wonderful way that he has worked with members of the majority and minority parties in this House and the great example he has set, and to say that it has been a genuine pleasure to serve on the Appropriations Committee with Lou Stokes. I have served on two subcommittees with Mr. Stokes, Labor-HHS and VA- HUD, and I have heard tributes at the subcommittee level, at the full committee level, and I have listened with interest and with admiration and with agreement. I have heard him called by many descriptions, Mr. Chairman, and I subscribe to them all: Mentor, role model, a worthy adversary from time to time, a champion for his State and for his district, and a champion in every sense of the word, a classic, and a friend. But, Mr. Chairman, where I come from, one of the most supreme compliments that can be paid to a man is to call him a southern gentleman, and in thinking about this I spoke with Mr. Stokes' other colleague (Mr. Kucinich), also from Cleveland, and we decided that if one looks at the map just right, Lou Stokes comes from southern Cuyahoga County, and he indeed qualifies as a southern gentleman. As a matter of fact, the gentlemanly conduct of Lou Stokes embodies those qualities that are universally admired, and that I have admired so much during the two terms that I have served with him on subcommittees. Lou Stokes never raises his voice. He never rails at individuals. He is effective. He gets the job done, and he has gotten the job done for his point of view, but always a gentleman in every sense of the word. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow said, ``Lives of great men all remind us we can make our lives sublime, and departing, leave behind us footprints on the sands of time.'' Well, Lou, you are departing this House, but I do not necessarily think you are departing the scene, and I certainly hope not. I have a feeling that there is much more service to this country, to society and to your fellow man, although I do hope perhaps you have a chance to spend a little more time with your family. I salute the gentleman from Ohio. I admire him. Lou, I wish you the best of luck, and Godspeed in your next endeavors.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, after consultation with the other side, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment be limited to 10 minutes, 5 minutes per side.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and in that 1 minute I have to close let me point out a couple of things. My friends on the other side of the aisle say we are talking about campaign finance reform, not voter fraud. I have the title of this bill right here, Mr. Chairman. It is H.R. 2183, the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act. The Campaign Integrity Act. I submit to my colleagues that if anything threatens the integrity of our elections in the United States of America, it is campaign fraud. All this amendment does is, I will quote, ``Permitting States to require voters to produce photo identification.'' And I quote, ``A State may require an individual to produce a valid photographic identification before receiving a ballot for voting in an election for Federal office.'' Mr. Chairman, this goes to the precious commodity of democracy in the franchise in this Nation. It is a very simple amendment and I move its adoption.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opponents of this amendment agreeing to a further limitation on time to speed the debate along. We have already debated, actually, a good bit of this amendment in the previous amendment. What this amendment amounts to is simply a portion of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). It is that portion permitting States to require voter I.D. This amendment does not deal with citizenship requirements, it does not deal at all with registration, it simply says that States have a right to determine when someone comes to vote that they are who they say they are and that they may do so by the means of photo I.D. Mr. Chairman, this is not a mandate on States, which some of my colleagues are very fearful of, but simply permission. It is the essence of Federalism. One of my colleagues from the minority side of the aisle mentioned the issue of States rights. I was delighted to hear her say that just a few moments ago. This is Federalism. This permits States, if they choose to, to require photo I.D. We have heard a lot of talk during the course of this debate over time about corruption of our political process. I am one, Mr. Chairman, who feels that there is corruption in our political process, but it is not caused by too many commercials being run on TV, it is not caused by too much money being available to buy too many advertisements. The corruption is in voter fraud. In far too many States and districts there are ineligible people voting. There are people going to the polls saying they are someone and, indeed, it turns out that they are not eligible to vote. Now, none other than the distinguished Professor Larry Sabato, from the University of Virginia, concurs in this feeling. Professor Sabato believes that the enactment of the Federal Motor Voter Law of 1993 will cause an increase in voter fraud. This amendment amends only a small portion of the Motor Voter Law. And, as I said, it takes that portion of the Goodlatte amendment and allows States the right. We have heard the information provided by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) tonight about the Louisiana election, and the Louisiana legislature in response to the allegations there. They may have thought, we do not know exactly what the facts are, we do not know who was right and who was wrong, but we do want to prevent this in the future. And what was the solution of the Louisiana legislature? It was to permit voter photo I.D. In Florida, the State legislature was so horrified at the 1997 mayoral election that the legislature there enacted photo I.D. The State of Hawaii already has such a requirement on the books. We are simply saying that other States should feel clear and unrestricted in also pursuing that course and should not feel that the 1993 Motor Voter Law prevents them from doing so. In the United States of America we require a photo I.D. for millions of people to do any number of acts: To cash a check, to board an airplane, or to buy a beer. Why can States not require a photo identification for participating in Federal elections, one of the most solemn acts of citizenship? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this rule, although I do support it, but my name was called, and I want to explain what the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) was talking about. Mr. Speaker, there is a provision in this bill not to stop a rule on flammability, but to let scientists decide what the exact effect is, not only on consumers, but also on the people who work around these flame retardants. There can be very harmful effects to the workers and also to the consumers, and we need to let the scientists look at this. This provision provides for outside peer review. I never authorized my staff to say that the fire marshals supported this provision. What is true is that I have worked as member of the Committee on Appropriations with members of the Committee on Commerce, and they are now satisfied. So if someone said the fire marshals have signed off on it, that is inaccurate. What is true is that the Committee on Commerce does now support the provision.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. The chairman of the subcommittee has advised me that he will accept the amendment if I am brief, and I intend to comply with that request. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with competition by the Postal Service in nonpostal commercial activities, such as the pack and send activities. The gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) had an amendment that was closely related to it that was accepted by the Committee of the Whole a few hours ago now. It dealt with fairness globally. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, deals with fairness as it relates between the Postal Service and small business, where, for example, a small business has taken out a loan, it is a mom and pop operation, they are raising their kids, paying their taxes, and here comes the big behemoth Postal Service coming in to compete with them. This certainly is not as strong as the committee language which was stricken by a point of order, but it does send a message. It does say that no funds under this act shall be used to initiate new commercial non-postal services. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move the question on the amendment.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire about the time remaining?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I just wondered if the gentleman recalls that, in response to this proposal to have overnight stays, the President actually sent a memo back to his chief of staff saying, yes, pursue promptly and get the names at $100,000 or more, $50,000 or more ready to start overnights right away, a memo from the President of the United States.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield five minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Chairman, as many of my colleagues know, I do not agree with much of what this body is attempting to do in this legislation. I do not agree with cutting down on free speech, I do not agree that we have too much political expression in this country, and so I disagree with the direction that many of my colleagues are going in, and I think the American people are sort of with me on this. I was encouraged to see the Washington Post/ABC News poll on the front page of the Washington Post newspaper this morning where it said that some of the things that we seem to be interested in here in this body and inside the Beltway are not really important to the voters out there in the public. When asked about changing the way political campaigns are financed, only 32 percent of the American voters think that is a very important issue, and only 1 in 10, only 1 in 10, Mr. Chairman, will let that issue decide how they will cast their ballots in November. So I think we have been spending a lot of time talking about things like cutting down on free speech that we ought not to do and changing our campaign laws which maybe the people are not really interested in. Here we are right now though at a very important issue, at a problem which exists, and does it ever exist, as shown by these headlines from around the Nation: ``Donors Pay and Stay at the White House''; Lincoln Bedroom a Special Treat, a Washington Post headline, my colleagues.'' So I rise today to bring an issue that is most important, and that is a problem, and that is to prohibit fund-raising in the White House, the actual sale of coffees and overnight stays in the White House. Let me make it clear that I believe the Pendleton Act of 1883 already makes it illegal for the President and Vice President to solicit contributions from the White House or the executive office buildings. The problem is that the law has not been enforced because courts have been hesitant on how to interpret the law. President Clinton and others have seized upon this ambiguity and flagrantly violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. For this reason we need to pass this amendment. This amendment goes further than the Shays-Meehan language, and, as a matter of fact, I would hope the authors of Shays-Meehan would vote for this amendment and accept it as an amendment that perfects the language they had offered previously. This amendment would close the loopholes President Clinton and Vice President Gore have succeeded in driving trucks through. And, make no mistake about it, they drove those trucks all the way to the bank. There can be no doubt as to the need for this provision. In the history of the presidency, there has never been such an orchestrated effort to subvert the law and misuse public property for the express purpose of netting political donations. The integrity of the White House has been compromised by shamelessly putting it up for sale. The facts are shocking. President Clinton and Vice President Gore hosted more than 100 coffees inside the White House, which resulted in a staggering $27 million in Democrat contributions. Among the more than 1,500 guests attending these thinly disguised political fund raisers were Chinese arms dealers and business executives from Thailand. President Clinton invited more than 300 Democrat party donors to stay in the Lincoln bedroom in exchange for campaign contributions. White House documents confirm that President Clinton solicited contributions by telephone from the White House, raising at least half a million dollars. Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., has admitted that he made phone calls from his White House office, and further stated that there was ``no controlling legal authority'' which precluded his actions. Tonight we can provide that controlling authority. This president has done what no president before him has ever done; he has put a price tag on the highest office of the land. He has sold access to the White House and its accommodations to raise millions of dollars for the Democratic National Committee and his own reelection. At no time did Bill Clinton and Al Gore have ownership of the White House. At no time did they have authority to sell or rent the White House. The White House belongs to the people, to the people of the 1st Congressional District of Mississippi, and to every Congressional District in the United States of America. It belongs to the American people. The passage of this amendment would make it clear that the White House should never again be used and abused for political fund-raising purposes. This short and straightforward amendment makes it illegal for White House meals and accommodations to be used for political fund- raising. The language is very plain. There is no ambiguity, there are no loopholes. Neither Mr. Clinton nor Mr. Gore nor any others would ever be able to skirt around the law, should this be enacted. I strongly urge my colleagues to put an end to the sale of the White House and vote for this amendment.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished Majority Whip.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of closing the debate, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. WICKER. I decline to yield further. Mr. Chairman, further I think this proposal is unconstitutional because of the unprecedented limitations that it places on political advertising and political issue expression, and let me explain.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it will only be a poison pill if somehow the gentleman from Massachusetts or the gentleman from Connecticut go to sleep and allow that poison pill to go through. In the brief time that I have remaining, let me tell Members why I think this proposal is unconstitutional. First of all, because the minority leader of the United States House of Representatives really admits that it is unconstitutional. Let me show my colleagues this poster which the Members have seen several times before, but this is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), House Democratic Leader, February 3, 1997, Time magazine: What we have is two important values in direct conflict: freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy. You can't have both; an admission by the minority leader that what he wants to do and what his political allies want to do is unconstitutional. You have got to amend the Constitution in order to accomplish their goals. That is one reason that I think this Shays-Meehan proposal is unconstitutional.

Mr. WICKER. Reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman brought that up because he made that point earlier. Amendments are not that easy to pass. Amendments do not just get slipped in. We vote on them. We have 17-minute votes. I do not think amendments are going to be quite that easy. But if an amendment passes, it will be passed by a majority of the elected representatives of the people of the United States. I do not see his concern as being valid, that somehow late at night an unconstitutional amendment to this already unconstitutional proposal is going to slip in.